In today's episode, we're taken to the skies with Hillsborough County Mosquito Control to find out how they combat the spread of disease in the rising mosquito population. So when it comes to mosquitoes, how exactly are we combating them in the sky? Nobody complains about larvae, they complain about mosquitoes, and specifically adult mosquitoes, female mosquitoes, the ones that bite you, right? But it's a lot easier to control adult mosquitoes by controlling the larvae. What we do is we use a larvicide product that attacks the larvae in the swamps of the mangrove areas, along the coast here. We stop their growth so they never grow up and become adult mosquitoes. Welcome to a meeting of your planning commission, the official local planning agency for the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plan City, and unincorporated Hillsborough County. The planning commission provides innovative leadership and long-range vision that contributes to the creation of a thriving, prosperous community that offers opportunity, fairness, and choice in how we live, move, learn, work, and play. For more information about the planning commission, please call 813-272-5940. Follow us on social media or visit our website at planhillsborough.org. Welcome, everyone, to the June 8, 2026 public hearing of the planning commission on City of Plant City Comprehensive Plan Amendments. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning commissioners should unmute themselves and indicate that they would like to speak. Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking. State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits. If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org. For those of you who are not familiar with our process, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit. The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit. Following presentations, members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chairman. Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person. The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal or response. Planning commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second in discussion, a vote will be taken. To all participants, please note that tonight's hearing concerns proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. Presentation should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the commission. Zoning conditions are not relevant to plan amendments and may not be considered by the planning commission. The planning commission's purview in making a recommendation is limited to consistency or inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. And with that, I'd like to ask the clerk's representative to please call roll. Good evening, commissioners. Bowden? Cardenas? Here. Kona? Jemisin? Kugler? Here. Linkus? Here. Lauk? Steven? Orton? Renee came in, sitting in for Ms. Orton. Rodriguez? Here. Sink? Here. Joseph? Here. All right, thank you. You have quorum. All righty. Our first and only agenda item is Action Item 2A, PCCPA 26-02, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 302 Sparkman Road. And the presenter is Krista Kelly. Sorry, thank you. Krista Kelly, Planning Commission staff. This evening I'm presenting PCCPA 2602. This site is located at 302 Sparkman Road. This is a privately initiated small scale amendment. It's approximately 33.9 acres in size and is currently pending an annexation of the site. The plan amendment is contingent on the approval of the annexation. The applicant is requesting a change from Hillsborough County Residential 1 to Plant City Residential 6 and Residential 9. As you see on the location map, the site is located in the southern portion of Plant City. It is on the north side of Sparkman Road, east of James L Redmond Parkway and west of Gerald Hall Road. It's approximately 2.7 miles north of State Road 60 and five miles south of I-4. This is an aerial of the site outlined in pink. As you can see currently, it's used for agricultural purposes. I want to point out this area is a little dated in that the property immediately to the west of the site, that appears to be vacant, is currently developed with multi-family campuses or buildings. And also there are multi-family apartments to the northwest as well. The site is adjacent to the plant city city limits, which are delineated by the blue dotted line. As you can see, the areas outside of the city limits to the west, I mean to the east and the southeast of the site are rural in character, for rural and agricultural uses. It changes distinctly to along James L Redmond Parkway to the north again. You see the multi-family to the north, and then further north there's a concentration of a variety of retail uses. To the northwest across James L Redmond, you see the Parkway Plaza. It contains like grocery store, a bank, a medical facility, and then you see a church also to the west of the site. So this is the street view looking northeast across the subject property from Sparkman Road. And this is looking northwest across the subject site from Sparkman Road. Beyond those apartments is James L Redmond Parkway. This is looking west from the subject property towards James L Redmond Parkway, and the subject site is to the right and behind this view. Again, this is looking east from the subject site down Sparkman Road. The subject site is to the left and behind this view. This is the adopted future land use map showing the site outlined by the black dotted lines. As you see, the site's currently designated Hillsborough County Residential One, as are the areas to the east and south, which are outside the city limits. You see a distinct change within this boundary of the city limits, which would be to the north and northwest, and west and south. This is the gateway district, this purple color is the gateway district. It's specifically delineated to promote a commercial activity center in this area. It allows for a density of up to 16 dwelling units per unit, whereas the rural residential one category in the county allows one unit per acre. This is a proposed map showing the site now designated both residential nine on the western side, and residential six on the eastern portion of the site. Again, it is surrounded by the gateway district, which is an intense land use category. However, it does provide a nice stepping down or a gradual transition to the rural area. Currently, the site can be developed with up to 33 dwelling units or 369,171 square feet of non-residential use. If the plan amendment is approved, up to 271 dwelling units could be considered as well as 467,616 square feet of non-residential uses. In summary, the proposed amendment would allow for an additional 238 dwelling units, an increase of approximately 98,000 square feet of non-residential use. Staff reviewed the amendment for consistency with the comprehensive plan. These objectives you see on the slide were considered in the evaluation and they generally relate to the proposed amendment. Staff found the amendment to be consistent on the basis of the growth management strategies outlined in the plan and expressed in the objectives and policies here listed on the right. Under the land use section addressing annexation, staff found that the proposed amendment aligns with the city's intention to direct growth based on the city's vision map. The site lies within the annexation boundary shown on the vision map. Additionally, it would support the increased density and intensity in the area planned as a focal point for suburban and urban and urban mixed use development in the southwest portion of Plant City. Within the residential development section, staff found that the amendment is supported by related objectives and policies that call for maintaining a sufficient inventory of land designated for residential uses to accommodate growth and development and also to provide a variety of housing types. Consistent with this aspiration, the amendment which would designate 22 acres residential nine is located next to existing multi-family development. And designating the remaining 11 acres approximately residential six, this area borders rural development surrounding the site. Increasing both the amount of residential land in the city and opportunities to develop at a variety of housing types ranging from single family to multi-family housing. Lastly, under the public facilities section, staff found the amendment consistent with the plan amendments growth management strategy requiring new development to be coordinated with the availability of public facilities and services. The plan, the plant city utilities department has confirmed that there is adequate potable water and waste water capacity and it is available in the area to serve the project. Based on these findings, the planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of plant cities comprehensive plan. And that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. In addition, the applicant is here and I will turn it over to her. Good evening, Cammie Corbett with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson representing the applicant. We have a very brief presentation and I'm going to ask Stephen, our planner, to go through it for you. Good evening, Stephen Sposato, planner with Level Up Consulting here in Tampa. And as Cammie said, what we have prepared and what we have planned to say in our PowerPoint this evening is very consistent with what Krista presented. So I will be brief and try not to be repetitive. An additional detail is that we did meet with Robin Baker, her staff, as well as engineering staff with the city. And our planning approach, as well as our application, is consistent with those meetings. Next, okay. From a macro perspective, what we're proposing is consistent with the city's guidance on development. We, the annexation that we provided or that has been submitted with the city has been found supportable. If you zoom in, we were actually able to, I know Krista mentioned the aerial. We were able to inlay the development of that parcel that's adjacent to our site. So that area will just represent sort of what the current development is for the property. Okay, so the theme and I guess our planning approach really is that we are transitioning or stepping down in density, intensity from the gateway district, which is on our western edge, which allows for the 16 units to the acre to our proposed nine and then six. And then directly adjacent to us, there is four existing and also res one. And so you can see on the map that that same condition is basically found on the north side of the property as well, where you see the res six existing within the city. Again, we're compatible with what is found adjacent. Here's just a little bit more detail of what is to the north of us, which is the North Point Grand Apartments. And then directly to the west is the pros apartments. And then compatibility will also be more fully addressed during the PUD. In terms of environmental or the physical geography, the property is suitable for intensification. And as Christa also presented, there's a demonstrated availability of public services. Request is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. It provides for orderly growth and is compatible. And we have no objections. We've been found consistent and have a recommendation of approval. Thank you. Cammie Corbett again, that concludes our presentation. We're here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. All right, we had one individual sign up in the public comment on this one, and they are virtual. So I will see if Corleen Finley is on the line, HTV. Corleen has not checked in. All right, that was the one individual we had sign up. So I will turn it over in that case to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions of this item. Commissioner Lakers? I guess I just want to observe or ask a few questions about the fact that we have R1 right abetting the High Density Gateway District. And I think we've seen quite a few cases of this nature at this point. And we have the one comment, and we do have Ms. Finley's comments and writing here today. But I guess my question is, is this part of the I-4 expansion area that's being looked at? Or are there plans to look at this area more broadly? Because it does seem like potentially a point of conflict given the sort of low density right next to the Gateway area. Sure. This is not a part of the I-4 corridor study area, but it is part of the areas, I think, that Plant City would like to have a joint planning area with the county for. That's actually something their plan has had as a strategy for a while, and Robin Baker, who was mentioned as their planning director, is very eager on seeing that strategy come to fruition and doing some joint planning with the county as it goes south from Plant City in this area as well as going west towards that yellow line in the I-4 corridor maps. So, I think that is something that's needed. The challenge is that any time the unincorporated county has rural land use categories because they're not served by water and sewer. It's typically in the rural area one unit per five acres or maybe up to one to one or higher if there's an existing zoning pattern from predating the plan. And development pattern and development pattern, then we recognize that, which occurs around a lot of Plant City. When they annex into the city of Plant City, they're going to serve them with water and sewer, and they want them to connect with at least four units per acre or higher, so there's always going to be kind of this mismatch on the edge. It reminds me of a case I'm looking at for another work in sort of the greater Ocala area. I guess it's actually Lake County, but they're looking at things like identifying potential non-annexation areas where people really do want to keep a rural character, but exploring where it is appropriate to have annexation and that folks might be more interested. So I'm happy to hear that it sounds like this is an area that will be looked at potentially a little more carefully because it's that inner jurisdictional issue here. And I think it could be an area for a lot of folks to kind of have unhappy feelings if that's not handled a little more. So thank you. I appreciate the answer. Commissioner Coogler. Commissioner Coogler. Thank you. I noticed in the packet, it said that as far as urban service area, not applicable. And I took that to mean that it already is in the urban service area. I just want to make sure my reading is correct. Looks like Christa has a response to that. In what section can I ask you that you're referring to? In the presentation material, I got it online. I got it through Gmail, and I was reading through it, and it said USA not applicable. Oh, okay, I understand. I'm sorry, I was thinking I wrote that in my staff report. Right, the Plant City does not have a formal urban service area. Okay. That's basically the county in Tampa. Thank you. Right. So it's either in the plant city limits or it's not. Okay. The urban service area is essentially kind of like a city limits for the unincorporated area because it's where they'll serve with water and sewer. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Right. Are there any more questions, comments? Commissioner Cardenas, your mic is on. Is that? Nope. All right. Any other thoughts, questions, comments, discussions from the commissioners before I close the public comment? One is going twice, and I will close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Linkus. I'll make a motion to find PCCPA 2602 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 302 Sparkman Road consistent with the City of Plant City Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Sink. I second that. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Linkus. Second to that consistency motion by Commissioner Sink. Are there any comments, thoughts, questions from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any. Then would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. That was all for that public hearing for Plant City. So I will close the public or adjourn the public hearing for Plant City at 634 p.m. And turn us over into our, read us into our Temple Terrace public hearing. So bear with me for just a moment, everyone. Welcome to the June 8th, 2026 public hearing of the Planning Commission on City of Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan Amendments. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate they would like to speak. Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking. State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits. If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org. For those of you who are not familiar with our process, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit. The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit. Following presentations, members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chairman. Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person. The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal or response. Planning commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed and upon a motion, a second in discussion of what will be taken. To all participants, please note that tonight's hearing concerns propose changes to the comprehensive plan. Presentations should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the commission. Zoning conditions are not relevant to plan amendments and may not be considered by the planning commission. The planning commission's purview in making a recommendation is limited to consistency or inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. And with that, I would like to ask the clerk to please call roll again. Belden? Cardenas? Kona? Jemison? Kugler? Here. Linkas? Here. Lauch? Sieben? Sink? Here. Orton? Rodriguez? Here. Joseph? Here. All right. Thank you. O'Quorum. All right. Our first and only action item is 2A, TTCPA 26-01 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Southeast Quadrant of Harney Road and U.S. Highway 301. And the presenter is Yanika Mills. Good evening, Yanika Mills Planning Commission staff. I'm here to present TTCPA 2601, located at the Southeast Quadrant of U.S. Highway 301 and Harney Road. This is a privately initiated amendment. It's a little over 12 acres. And the applicant is requesting the change of future land use designation from Hillsborough County Community Mixed Use 12 to Temple Terraces Community Mixed Use 12. Again, the site is located on the south side of Harney Road, east of U.S. Highway 301. It's east of the Amazon Logistics Center, west of the Tampa Bay bypass canal, west of Interstate 75. The site also falls within the designated economic development area. This area is identified as developing out as a regional activity center as well as attracting target industries and employment. Here's an area of the site, outlined in pink. The site is currently vacant at this time. The blue dashed line to the west represents the jurisdictional boundary. The dashed blue line to the east represents the Tampa service area boundary. Some of the surrounding uses include a single family residential and vacant allots along Bowles Road to the east. We have a construction company just to the south of the subject site. And then across Highway 301, we have the Amazon Distribution Center. And then to the northwest, there are a mixture of uses. There's some commercial as well as a church, as well as residential uses. Here is the northern boundary of the site at the intersection of Bowles and Horny Road. Here is a photo looking north along US Highway 301. The site is off to the right of this photo. Here is a photo looking north toward the intersection of Bowles and Horny Road. The site is off to the left in this photo. And here is the subject site directly to the south that I was speaking of, the construction company. And here's a photo looking west from the subject site, and that's the Amazon Distribution Center. And we have, this is off to the southeast of the subject site, which is a subdivision. Again, as I noted, the site is found within the designated economic development area, designated on the vision map, and it was adopted and approved by the city council in 2012. This area is envisioned to evolve into a regional activity center focused on economic development and employment generation. Here is the adopted future land use map. Again, it's designated unincorporated Hillsborough County Community Mixed Use 12. To the east and south is also designated as Community Mixed Use 12. Further east is designated as public quasi-public in the blue, which is the Tampa by Bass Canal. Then we have a presence of Hillsborough County Urban Mixed Use 20 and Residential 9, which are located to the northwest. Further northeast is the presence of Hillsborough County Residential 4 in the tan color. As for Temple Terrace feature land use designations in the immediate area, we have Research Corporate Park, which is to the west, and that's the Amazon Distribution Center. And then further to the northwest, we have Temple Terrace feature land use designations, which includes Residential 9, Urban Mixed Use 20, and additional Community Mixed Use 12. And this is the site, again, proposed as Temple Terrace's Community Mixed Use 12. As for entitlements, this amendment would keep the same entitlements. The maximum density that could be considered is 146 toilet units, and the allowable intensity is over 256 square feet of non-residential uses. Though the entitlements are the same, the one difference that staff did note is that the Hillsborough County Community Mixed Use 12 does have the allowance for Research Corporate Park uses within its typical list use, which Temple Terrace's use list does not. Staff considered policies related to the coordination of infrastructure as well as issuance of development orders. However, staff found the request to be consistent with the following policies objectives. The request supports the economic development area as the CMU 12 feature land use designation would allow uses that could be considered as employment generators, consistent with land use policies 3.6.1, 3.6.4, and 1.1.6, which speak to the location of the economic development area and the types of uses that are encouraged there. The request also supports land use policies 3.5.1, 3.5.6, and 3.5.7, 4.1.2, and 4.3.3, designating the intersection of US Highway 301 and Harney Road as an activity center and multimodal transportation district. Encouraging a mixed use retail service commercial and orientation oriented uses. And finally, the request supports compatibility with surrounding residential uses consistent with land use policies 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 3.5.5, 8.5.1, and 8.5.3. As the CMU 12, future land use would be required to do a plan development at the rezoning stage and have to mitigate for impacts and meet land development code regulations. And based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff found that TTCPA 2601 is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan. And I stand for any questions. The applicant's here for any questions as well. Thank you. Publicly initiated? This is privately initiated. Okay. Do you have a presentation? Okay. Come on down. Good evening. Kami Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson. I don't have a separate presentation. It's pretty straightforward. We are annexing this parcel into the city of Temple Terrace. We are keeping the same land use. We had considered Research Corporate Park. My client is Ryan Companies. Ryan is no longer pursuing this site, but we agreed to continue with the application for annexation and the comp plan for the landowner. And so I'm here to answer any questions should you have any. Alrighty. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one, so I will turn it over to the planning commissioners for questions, comments, discussions on this one. I'm not seeing a lot of excitement. Then I'll go on ahead and close the public comment since you all want to be that way on this one and open it up to motions from the planning commissioners. This item needs acres. Commissioner Linkus. Turn your mic on. I need someone to give me the name of this one. CPA 2601. Okay. So I'd like to make a motion to make CPA 2601 consistent with the Temple Terrace comprehensive plan. Alright. We have a second by Commissioner Kugler. Second. Alright. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Linkus. A second by Commissioner Kugler. Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any, then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. And that was our only agenda item for this public hearing. So at 6.45 p.m., this public hearing is adjourned. Good night, everyone.